Abstract
This chapter explores how the completion of a doctorate can be seen as a journey where similar landscapes, in terms of rules for completion, supervision and the like, are traversed in unique ways by individual doctoral students. These transversals are conceptualised via an ‘Activity Systems’ approach, as the author travels a unique path from a doctoral student to Early Career Academic (ECA). The various experiences of this journey form the ‘dataset’ for this chapter. As an initial position, Engestrom’s (1987) Activity Systems are used to situate the author in a university Community of Practice (CoP), with the notion of Active Subjectivities (Valsiner & Van Der Veer, 2002) used as a conceptual tool. This approach identifies an active subject, who chooses from a range of available roles (student, researcher, author, lecturer or colleague) in response to a range of intellectually disquieting discourses within a particular context. In investigating the transition from commencing doctoral student to ECA, it is suggested that the resolution of the tensions in an Activity System is a consequence of personal transformation whilst simultaneously acknowledging that individual agentic action in a CoP shapes this transformation at a more granular level than can solely be explained by Activity Systems. A new conceptual model, offering a relational approach to the individual and social dichotomy evident in workplaces (Billett, 2006), is proposed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Angeli, C. (2008). Distributed cognition: A framework for understanding the role of computers in classroom teaching and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,40(3), 271–280.
Baker, C. (1997). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research theory, method and practice (pp. 130–143). London: Sage.
Beauchamp, C., Jazvac-Martek, M., & McAlpine, L. (2009). Studying doctoral education: Using activity theory to shape methodological tools. Innovations in Education & Teaching International,46(3), 265–277.
Billett, S. (2003). Individualising the social—socialising the individual: Interdependence between social and individual agency in vocational learning. Keynote presentation (Electronic version). 11th annual international conference on post-compulsory education and training: Enriching learning cultures, 1, 55–71. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/1677/1/CLWRIndividual_and_social.pdf.
Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life (Electronic version). Mind, Culture and Activity, 13, 53–69. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/11761/1/Individual_and_socialMCA2.pdf.
Brown, R., Finger, G., & Reeves, B. (2007). Educational research—who needs it? Changing membership within a research community of practice. In R. Brown, G. Finger, & C. Rushton (Eds.), Educational research: Who needs it? (Proceedings from the inaugural, 2006 research higher degree conference held at the School of Education and Professional Studies, Gold Coast Campus of Griffith University, Queensland, pp. 7–20). Teneriffe, Queensland: Post Pressed.
Dale, J. M. (2003). Calculators, mathematics and young children: A study of six children using calculators as part of the mathematics curriculum during their first two years of school. Melbourne: Deakin University.
Daniels, H. (2008, April 1). Strengths and limitations of activity theory in educational research conference presentation, Griffith University.
Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures: Are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education,25(2), 149–165.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elks, E. D. (2005). A cultural historical activity theory perspective of the Queensland ambulance service. Brisbane: Griffith University.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity—theoretical approach to developmental research. Retrieved from http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, S. E. (2006). Understanding students learning statistics: An activity theory approach. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (3rd ed., pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Larkin, K. (2009). Apprentice, collaborator, colleague, competitor: Negotiating the trajectory(ies) of a doctoral student. In B. Garrick, S. Poed, & J. Skinner (Eds.), Educational planet shapers: Researching, hypothesising, dreaming the future (pp. 51–66). Brisbane. Post Pressed.
Latheef, I., & Romeo, G. (2010). Using cultural historical activity theory to investigate interactive whiteboards. Paper presented at the ACEC 2010: Digital Diversity Conference.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Martek, M. (2008). Emerging academic identities: How education PhD students experience the doctorate. Montreal: McGill University.
Max, C. (2010). Learning-for-teaching across educational boundaries: An activity-theoretical analysis of collaborative internship projects in initial teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development. Hoboken: Routledge.
McAlpine, L., & Norton, J. (2006). Reframing our approach to doctoral programs: An integrative framework for action and research. Higher Education Research & Development,25(1), 3–17.
Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (1997). The “inside” and the “outside”: Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research theory, method and practice (pp. 99–112). London: Sage.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and conciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (3rd ed., pp. 69–102). London, UK: MIT Press.
Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 83–92.
Romeo, G., & Walker, I. (2002). Activity theory to investigate the implementation of ICTE. Education and Information Technologies,7(4), 323–332.
Roschelle, J. (1998). Activity theory: A foundation for designing learning technology? The Journal of the Learning Sciences,7(2), 241–255.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research,77(2), 186–232.
Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,21, 430–439.
Sharpe, M. (2003). Making meaning through history: Scaffolding students’ conceptual understanding through dialogue. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.
Stevenson, J. (2004). Memorable activity: Learning from experience. In J. Searle, C. McKavanagh, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Doing thinking activity learning—Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on post-compulsory education and training (Vol. 2, pp. 183–193). Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Sweeney, T. (2010). Quality teaching and interactive whiteboards: Using activity theory to improve practice. Paper presented at the ACEC 2010: Digital Diversity Conference.
Tolman, C. W. (1999). Society vs. context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 70–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, M. A., & Danaher, P. A. (2010). Ringing the changes: Mapping networks of support for two doctoral students. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development,7(1), 1–15.
Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of an idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Retrieved from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml.
Wheelahan, L. (2004). Theorising the individual in an activity system. In J. Searle, C. McKavanagh, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), Doing thinking activity learning: Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on post-compulsory education and training (Vol. 2, pp. 253–260). Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2007). Pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: Using an activity theory approach to understand tensions in practice. Mathematics: Essential Research Essential Practice,2, 853–862.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Larkin, K. (2019). Exploring the Transition Between Doctoral Student and Early Career Academic: A New Perspective on Activity Systems. In: Machin, T.M., Clarà, M., Danaher, P.A. (eds) Traversing the Doctorate. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23731-8_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23731-8_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23730-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23731-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)